The bar sought review of the trial panel's decision and asks this court to adopt the trial panel's findings but to modify its sanction and disbar the accused. The bar alleges that the accused violated RPC 8.4(a)(2) and RPC 8.4(a)(3) by knowingly converting firm funds to personal use, failing to disclose unauthorized shareholder distributions, and falsely recording personal expenses as firm expenses. The bar argues that those actions constituted theft by deception. In response, the accused concedes his actions but contests the severity of those acts, arguing that the one-year suspension imposed by the trial panel was appropriate and that, because the law firm should be considered a partnership, he did not commit theft by deception.

(2) Did the trial panel correctly conclude that the accused violated RPC 8.4(a)(2) by committing theft by deception?

(3) Did the trial panel correctly conclude that the accused should be suspended for one year with certain conditions of reinstatement, or should the trial panel have disbarred the accused?

The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.